Search results

Introduction to international legal regulation -- Custom and other sources -- Treaties -- States -- International organizations -- Principles of state responsibility -- Adjudicating international disputes -- Enforcing international law -- Self-defense -- Humanitarian intervention -- Human rights -- International humanitarian law -- International criminal law -- Applying international law in domestic courts -- Principles of jurisdiction -- Immunities -- International economic law -- International environmental law.

This article argues that the so-called Chinese string of pearls policy needs to be examined from the perspectives of those small countries of this maritime region that are said to be supporting Chinese strategic interests in the region by providing naval bases to China. Bangladesh neither has compelling strategic reasons to be part of an anti-India policy nor is its economy dependent only on the Chinese economy—a situation which could have pushed it into such a strategy. Therefore, apprehensions of the Indian strategic community of Sino-Bangladeshi relations constituting a larger anti-India design are somewhat misplaced. Bangladesh is likely to continue to pursue a policy of making best of its relations with both countries, even though an anti-India bias in certain sections of Bangladeshi society and politics will persist. In the post-Cold War, countries are focused on how to reap the dividends of economic globalisation and such hostile policies are anachronistic and counterproductive especially from the point of view of countries like Bangladesh that are small in terms of overall national capabilities. It is, therefore, argued that China–Bangladesh relations are flourishing in their own right, by and large free from the Indian shadow.

Post-conflict peacebuilding is a multidimensional, highly complex and multifaceted undertaking that requires significant resources (financial, technical, human, etc.). With the proliferation of actors in this field, it's in this context that peacebuilding interventions by international financial institutions in countries emerging from armed conflict are taking place. It's therefore not surprising to see that international financial institutions linking are peace and development issues. Because it should be noted that "action in favour of development produces its best results only in times of peace." While the competence of international financial institutions in the economic field is a truism, their competence in peacebuilding is not reflected and deserves more appeal and questioning. Peacebuilding is therefore not expressly included in the constitutive documents of the international financial institutions. This is why it's relevant to focus on the legality of peacebuilding interventions by international financial institutions whose intervention in fragile countries, including post-conflict countries, is very often criticized and can generate feelings of mistrust and enthusiasm. The international financial institutions in question include the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Regional Development Banks. The main objective of the United Nations is the maintenance of international peace and security. Today, this objective has evolved to include peacebuilding after maintaining it. Thus, since the international financial institutions are specialized agencies of the United Nations, their peacebuilding interventions are, therefore, lawful because they are part of the United Nations system.